SNP manifesto: Pro-EU and no new independence vote

The Scottish National Party has unveiled their campaign manifesto, promising an alternative to austerity and reaffirming their commitment to EU membership.

Speaking at a rock climbing centre in Edinburgh yesterday (20 April), SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said her party would make “Scotland stronger at Westminster”.

The SNP want a 0.5% above inflation increase in government spending in each year of the next parliament. The party says this “modest” rise will still help reduce the deficit while freeing up £140 billion to invest in public services. The SNP also want greater financial independence for Scotland, specifically the ability to raise its own taxes.

The party opposes a referendum on EU membership which it says is “good for business”. If there is a vote, the SNP are arguing for a “double majority”. This would mean a majority voting against the EU in each of the four nations that make up the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island) for “Brexit” to occur, rather than a simple majority across the UK.

While accepting the need for “effective immigration controls” the manifesto laid out the most pro-immigration stance taken by any of the main parties. The SNP called for immigration policies that “meet our economic needs” and for the re-introduction of post study work visas so that “those we have helped educate are able […] to make a contribution to our economy.”

The SNP wants clear exemptions for both the National Health Service and the publically owned Scottish Water from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Doing the electoral math

Sturgeon, who is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, isn’t standing for election to Westminster, and voters outside of Scotland will be unable to vote for the party. Despite this they look set to be the third largest party after the election on 7 May. As a result they could be a key player in post-election coalition talks.

Their manifesto made it clear they would not support a Conservative government instead offering to work with like-minded parties from across the UK. This means potentially forming a voting bloc with Plaid Cymru, of Wales, and the Greens, which would support a minority Labour government in a case by case basis.

In a televised debate last week Sturgeon made an offer to work with Labour “to keep out the Tories.”

Labour leader Ed Miliband rejected the overture saying his party didn’t “need help.” The latest polls suggest Labour could win around 270 seats and the SNP up to 50, which would still leave the grouping short of the 326 seats need for a majority in the House of Commons.

The Conservative party said SNP plans would lead to a massive increase in the national debt. They labelled the manifesto “the most expensive ransom note in history.” The Tories say any SNP-Labour deal will effectively give the SNP a veto on any legislation in the House of Commons.

Background

The Scottish National Party have held a majority in the devolved Scottish parliament since 2011.

They campaigned for Scottish Independence in a referendum last September, but lost. Since then the SNP have seen their poll ratings increase and look set to be the third largest party in the next Westminster parliament, despite only putting forward candidates in Scotland.

The Conservatives have promised to hold a referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017 if they win on 7 May.

EURACTIV's editorial content is independent from the views of our sponsors.

Media is a pillar of democracy – as long as it can function properly. Now more than ever we need unbiased, expert information on how and why the European Union functions. This information should not be behind a paywall, and we remain committed to providing our content for free.

We know our readers value our reporting. We know journalism that covers the EU in a clear, unbiased way is critical to the future of the European Union. And we know your support is critical for ensuring this independent and free journalism.

Don’t take the media sector for granted. It was already fragile before the coronavirus pandemic. And as people can’t meet, media companies have lost a major source of revenue: events. EURACTIV is supported by a mix of revenue streams including sponsorships, online advertising, EU-funded projects, and policy debates. All of these sources of revenue are impacted by the current crisis.

While media struggles, disinformation thrives. We are already seeing fearmongering, fake news about the EU response, and increased threats to freedom of the press.

For more than two decades we have provided free, independent, multilingual reporting on the European Union. We continue to believe in Europe, and we hope you do too.

Your financial support at this critical time will allow our network of newsrooms across Europe to continue their work when Europe needs it most.

I would like to remind you thee important FACTS:
First, the sovereignty is not given away to Brussels, it is shared. The procedures for voting in the Council of the European Union are described in the Treaty of Lisbon. Certain policy fields even remain subject to unanimity (i.e. UK can veto).
Second, subsidiarity is a general principle of European Union law: “Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.”
Third, a country does not necessarily need to leave as a whole, only part of it can exit. Staying in the EU can justify the call for more autonomy, especially if the UK exits. Scotland could still remain in the EU even if the rest of the country leaves. But in this case, the regions in and out will quickly need greater autonomy. That’s what happened in Denmark when Greenland left the EU.

one thing I have noticed about the treaty is it will not work if the people of the nation do not support it… governments may come and go at the people’s choice. just look at what happened to the politicians that signed us up to the treaty in the UK they got sacked by the people of the UK.

Suddenly …. The biggest contradiction in history ! Hmm
Don’t you – Nigel – act extremely nationalist too by helping to splitt Your union into 2 halfs ?
At the instance the extremely undemocratic even communistic and fully centralized Westminster took basically all sovereignity from Scotland in contrary to the European Union in which isn’t even federalized .
Now you can continue your war words about “un-democratic” .

Why do start with lol? Is there something funny that I missed?Federalism is a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states, nations or regions). So the federalism concept prescribes to share the sovereignty with lower level of government. For this very reason, it is usually very popular among nationalists. That is not something new. The same thing happens in Catalonia and Flanders. The SNP wants to apply principle of subsidiarity in UK to defend their national interest. So they understand that sovereignty can be shared at different level of governance. In a coherent conceptual framework, it makes perfect sense to share sovereignty with both the sub- and supra- national levels.
When you don’t understand the principle of subsidiarity, you will never accept to devolve power to a lower or upper level. That’s the reason why some people are both against the EU and more autonomy to Scotland. They want the power in Westminster and nowhere else. It’s coherent as well. May be you fear the destruction of Great Britain because you don’t understand the concept of shared sovereignty.

Yes but what if you do not want to share or divide. ever heard of divorce. after all Scotland had there chance and blew it. for over 500 years Scotland wanted to be there own masters well they had the chance the SNP is not going to be aswell received in England as they think like the wife you want to get rid of

What are you talking about ?, if you must comment on Great Britain at least do a little research.

Scotland asked for the union in 1706 (passed into law in 1707), The English didn’t want it but agreed to help the Scottish people who were under the yoke of highland feudalism, basically they were ‘owned’ as cattle by the tartan wearing highlanders.

What’s your point? England did not want the union with Scotland but finally they changed their mind. Yes it sounds familiar. In the early 1960s the EEC did not accept UK membership (it was viewed as a Trojan horse for U.S. influence). Same kind of situation. If you must comment on the EU at least do a little research. 😉 Indeed European countries were all bankrupt after World War II. They wanted a bailout … form US. Now the issue of fiscal federalism comes for the same reason. Is it bad? Do you think that peripheral countries should not have been accepted in the EU and Scoland have been accepted in UK?

Quote Third, a country does not necessarily need to leave as a whole, only part of it can exit. Staying in the EU can justify the call for more autonomy, especially if the UK exits. Scotland could still remain in the EU even if the rest of the country leaves. But in this case, the regions in and out will quickly need greater autonomy. That’s what happened in Denmark when Greenland left the EU. Unquote.

You and I have had this conversation before and you know that it’s nonsense. Your agreement that it is nonsense is at the following thread when we discussed it in great detail. Please try and be consistent!

It is laughable that sturgeon wants Scotland to be independent from Britain but is fully in favour of being controlled by an unelected committee of failed politicians in brussels although as we know independence from the UK means no place in the eussr anyway. As for the ludicrous ideation that sovereignty can be shared anonymous poster, no one elected the commission, and no one ever will, it has no democratic mandate, and is not accountable to anyone, that is not sovereignty.

@elvineastwood In principle treaties should be supported by people. But unfortunately in practice it is rarely true. See again the issue of TTIP.
Also share and divide are two different concepts. The idea of the founding fathers of the EU, was to creats a Europe of the regions rather than a group of nations. That’s the reason why structural funds are given directly to the regions.

@GeorgeMc You wrote it’s nonsense but I just said it is unlikely. If UK moves towards federalism, i.e. devolves more powers to its constituent parts, then it would become more likely that Scotland follows a different path than UK.

@ ge041075
Whether or not the UK becomes a Federal state is irrelevant to the discussion. As I said, we have had this conversation before and we both agreed that the UK is the member state. If the UK leaves the EU that means that England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland as constituent parts of the UK all leave. It is not difficult to understand. If you are suggesting that Scotland could then apply to join the EU as a new state, then we both agreed that may be possible That is if the politics are favourable. This would have to follow on from a further Scottish referendum, the formation of a Scottish central bank and other departments of state. This would probably take few a years of financial track record before becoming an acceptable applicant to other member states. We also agreed that your Denmark/Greenland scenario was a smoke screen and bore no relationship to the UK. As I say it helps if we are consistent with our facts and arguments.

@Barry Could you explain your statement: “no one elected the commission, and no one ever will, it has no democratic mandate, and is not accountable to anyone, that is not sovereignty”?
Do you know that the commission is accountable to the European Parliament? Do you know that the European Parliament is elected directly by the EU citizens? Do you know that EU democratic mandate is given by the Council of the EU which is made of the head of states/governments? They decided to share sovereignty together at EU level. The EU follows the same parliamentary system than UK. Citizens do not directly elect UK government. Do you want a system like in US where the president is directly elected by the people?
FYI, a parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state in which the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the parliament; the executive and legislative branches are thus interconnected. This is in contrast to a presidential system in a democracy, where the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature.

Currently, some parts of UK are not part of the EU. At least 10 territories of UK are outside the EU. Whether you like it or not, several territories of UK do follow different paths regarding EU membership. If Gibraltar wants to leave the EU, they can. The rest of UK can still remain a member. A country does not necessarily need to leave as a whole, only part of it can exit. UK can decide which part of the country is a member or not.

Whether or not Scotland has Central Bank is irrelevant to the discussion. This is not in the Copenhagen criteria. Luxembourg had no Central Bank until 1999. It is only required to join the EMU (i.e. euro area). However euro has been unilaterally adopted by two countries. One of them has even been granted candidate status.

Anyway, I concluded the discussion by saying: “The EU never favours clear cut solutions. Almost everything is possible in politics. That is why it is interesting to consider all the scenarios even when they are unlikely.” And you replied: Agreed. We agreed that it is unlikely but interesting. Apart from that I don’t think that we agreed on anything else. I know I won’t convince you that UK is more malleable that what you think it is.

@ ge041075
Your comment on 10 territories is irrelevant to this point as the territories you refer to are not part of the UK in the true sense. I have provided links in order that you can understand the difference between a Crown dependencies and a British Overseas territory.http://www.gov.je/Government/JerseyWorld/InternationalAffairs/Pages/RelationshipEUandUK.aspxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territorieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_dependencies
Your point that Gibraltar can leave the EU while true, in no way affects the position of the UK or its constituent parts as Gibraltar is not part of the UK.
Scotland needs a Central Bank if it goes for Independence (or a central bank to support them). That is why there was so much bad feeling during the referendum campaign because the UK government said that the Bank of England would not be the lender of last resort if Scotland went Independent. This was hugely important, Google it if you doubt me. Luxembourg was part of a currency union with Belgium, whose central bank would be the lender of last resort. Same thing. For Scotland, or any other state, to show that they would meet all the criteria before they joined the EU would require a Central Bank (or lender of last resort) and a track record over a few years. Naturally the EU doesn’t want another Greek scenario.

So, in conclusion, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the member state. If the member state leaves the EU then logically so does the parts of the whole. If a member part of the UK leaves, then they leave the EU as well. Simple really!

Some British overseas territories are part of the EU, others are not. Gibraltar accessed the EU because it was a dependent territory of UK. It is still under the sovereignthy of UK. Gibraltar is not indepedant. At EU level, special territories which, for historical, geographical, or political reasons, enjoy special status within or outside the European Union. The outermost regions (OMR) are geographic areas which are part of a European Union Member State, are situated outside of Europe and are fully part of the EU. In addition two EU member states are situated outside Europe: Malta and Cyprus. The overseas countries and territories (OCT) are dependent territories that have a special relationship with one of the member states of the EU and are not part of the EU. Finally some territories enjoy ad-hoc arrangements in their relationship with the EU (the so called protocol territories). There is ample flexibility. For instance Greenland, which joined the then European Community in 1973 along with Denmark, voted to leave the EC in 1982 and left in 1985, to become an OCT. Danemark is still a memberstate. The same could happen for Nothern Ireland.

If the member state leaves the EU then logically so does the parts of the whole (If UK leaves then Scotland leaves). That is correct. But it is not what I am talking about. I refer to the opposite: if parts of a member state leaves the EU then it has no impact on the remainings parts (If England leaves then Scotland remains). If Scotland get independant they would leave the EU. The rest of UK would still be part of the EU. That’s what happened to Algeria and France. This demontrates once again that the exit of constituent part does not imply to exist of the membe state. The cases of Netherlands Antilles, Guadeloupe and Greenland show that a change of EU statute can happen even when there is no secession. UK could allow Scotland to stay in and England to exit. Scotland could represent UK at EU level. It would be perfectly legal. For instance Belgium is represented by the Flemish government at the European Council for Martime Affairs.

Your comment on the Central Bank is not correct. The EU does not require a lender of last resort, it even prohibits monetary financing. The Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union reads: “Overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the European Central Bank or with the central banks of the Member States (hereinafter referred to as “national central banks”) in favour of Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of Member States shall be prohibited, as shall the purchase directly from them by the European Central Bank or national central banks of debt instruments.” A country can join the EU without is OWN central bank but it need a central bank. For this matter see the intersting case of Montenegro. Bank of England could be the Central Bank of Scotland even if the latter become sindependant. It is just a choice of UK not to allow that.

Please think outside the box if you want to understand how the EU works and evolves. Because it EU is not logical. The project was often dubbed as impossible.

Thank you for your World Tour. I find that when debating with people we need to keep the discussion tight in order to make any logical progress, otherwise it just becomes a stupid discussion. Let us look at the following statement by you:

“If the member state leaves the EU then logically so does the parts of the whole (If UK leaves then Scotland leaves). That is correct. ”
Good, we have progress.

Followed by:
“But it is not what I am talking about. I refer to the opposite: if parts of a member state leaves the EU then it has no impact on the remainings parts (If England leaves then Scotland remains). If Scotland get independant they would leave the EU. The rest of UK would still be part of the EU. That’s what happened to Algeria and France.”

This is important.
The legal agreement between the EU is with the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. If England, which has no legal status with the EU, decides to leave the EU, it would also have to leave the ‘UK’ or the others would leave the UK. If there is no UK then Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland need to decide whether they go it alone, band together and reapply to join the EU as one or individual nations. For practical purposes do remember that Wales, NI and Scotland represents about 11% of the UK population.

You said: “If England, which has no legal status with the EU, decides to leave the EU, it would also have to leave the ‘UK’ or the others would leave the UK.” Why do you think England would need to leave the ‘UK’ in order to leave the EU?

England has no legal status with the EU but this can be solved with a simple protocol agreement. This has been done for Saint Martin which had no legal status with the EU before the Lisbon Treaty. As a member state UK can decide anything regarding his membership. They can decide that only a very small portion of their territory remains a member. I could be even less than 1%. It would awkward and a bit stupid, but it would be legal.

If the UK leaves the EU the other parts of the UK may, according to some, decide to go it alone, in which case the UK ceases to exist. There would be some doubt if England could still operate under the legal name of Great Britain and NI. If the UK leaves it would not be a problem for the England who could go forward as such. It is. after all, the major part of the UK.
All this proves is that if you wish to leave an EU member state, this is fine. If the member state leaves, then the smaller parts of that State are stuffed for rejoining the EU until they can get their act together. Your point about St Martin means nothing in this context. The big one that I thought you would tried to bring up is West and East Germany.

@GeorgeMc: You said: “If the UK leaves the EU the other parts of the UK may, according to some, decide to go it alone, in which case the UK ceases to exist.” I don’t get your point.
If England leaves the EU, it could still remain in the UK. Being part of EU and part of UK is two different concepts.
If one constituent of UK gets independent then it cannot use the name UK. It is the remaining parts of UK which would keep the name and the international obligations. That applies even if it is the major part of the country that gets independent. If Flanders gets independent then Belgium will be reduced to Wallonia. Belgium would still exists but lose 60% of its population. If England gets independent then it would be outside UK.
Now regarding the name, it is just an internal issue. It has no impact on the international obligations. Hungary changed is name 2012 (from to) but it had no impact on its EU membership. All this proves that if UK let England leave the EU, the remaining parts could still be in the EU. The name has no impact on this. And the size of the constituents do not matter either. Moreover England does not need to get independent to leave the EU.
West and East Germany is an interesting case to join the EU. But here we were talking about leaving the EU. Cabo Verde wanted to use the precedent of German reunification to join the EU. They wanted to reunite with Portugal to access EU membership. They could have kept a large degree of autonomy like the Azores and Madeira. But Portugal refused to play that game. Independent Scotland could still try to play that trick… But I wonder with who they could reunite.

Contribute to our reporting

The need for fast, accurate and balanced information is always important. We value EURACTIV's good, independent journalism and support this initiative

Mella Frewen, Director General of FoodDrinkEurope

EURACTIV plays a vital role in bringing Europe closer to its citizens. EURACTIV has long recognised that the story of Europe has to be told across the continent, and not just in Brussels. We need to support a truly European and informed debate.